Central Information Commission
Jai Singh vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 11 February, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/AIIMS/A/2017/172722-BJ
Mr. Jai Singh
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Indian Council of Medical Research,
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, P.O. Box No. 4911
Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi - 110029
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 11.02.2019
Date of Decision : 11.02.2019
Date of RTI application 09.08.2017
CPIO's response Not on records
Date of the First Appeal 11.09.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on records
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 20.10.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 13 points regarding the personal details of one Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, including the photocopies of all documents related to his educational qualifications, photocopy of his application letter for the post of Hindi Translator, photocopy of his appointment letter, etc. Dissatisfied due to the non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Absent;
Both the parties remained absent during the hearing. Mr. Yaduvir Singh Yadav, Network Engineer NIC studio at Agra confirmed the absence of the Appellant. It was noted that in the Page 1 of 3 instant RTI application, no reply had been provided to the Appellant which is a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Commission also observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.
It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy." Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.
8..............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve / forward what his subordinates have done."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
Page 2 of 3"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions available on record, it is evident that no reply had been provided by the Respondent in the matter, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, instructs the CPIO to give a reply strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as also explain why penal action should not be taken as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Director General, ICMR is also directed to ensure the compliance of the aforementioned order and forward the show cause explanation from the concerned CPIO within the period stipulated above.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 11.02.2019
Copy to:
1. Prof. Balram Bhargava, Director General, ICMR, V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan, P.O. Box No. 4911, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110029 Page 3 of 3